Seems like a bad situation. But follow the timetable:

1) Austin buys the property

2) Begins renovations on vacant premises

3) Vandalism takes place

---------------

4) The conversion is complete

5) Property officially offered to homeless residents

Steps 4 and 5 haven't happened yet. So homeless people who "generally just destroy the living space" isn't a good fit for what's going on. This is simply a situation of an unsecured construction site that has attracted squatters and vandals.

That's a bad example. The unoccupied hotel was vandalized before the homeless were moved in. Yes, it a boondoggle, but nothing to do with homeless.

I don't think it was the local homeowners stealing live copper from the walls.

Where do you suspect that homeless are storing their caches of copper? Do you think they're carrying them around with them at all times?

Oh they sell it as soon as they can (copper is easy to recycle and carries direct value) and then use the money for whatever.

The risk of course is that you are ripping potentially live circuits out of a building. It usually requires you to already be impaired and desperate to do it. It's that fun combo of illegal and dangerous.

But it also wasn't homeless people being legally housed there. If your point is "people who live there take better care of the space", then that's what Austin is trying to do. Convert squatters stealing copper to the kind of people who live there.

Sounds like it could be a ring of criminals who are connected to those who can buy copper.

We also don't know it was the homeless, that kind of thing is often actual gang activity